McGinnis v. Davis

Background

Marcus G. McGinnis, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. He alleged that prison medical and dental personnel responded slowly or inadequately to his toothache, an abscessed tooth, the dry socket that followed extraction, and later infections. The alleged complications included a submandibular abscess, emergency surgery, infection that migrated to the bloodstream, and osteomyelitis of the jawbone requiring surgery and six weeks of intravenous antibiotics.

McGinnis named warden Ron Davis, CDCR Director/Commissioner Connie Gipson, dentists Dr. Earl Jones, Dr. Cerecedes, Dr. Clark, and Dr. Mettu, and nurses Rosemary Gladden and Pierre Salonga. He alleged that some defendants failed to provide or intervene in adequate treatment, that Davis and Gipson failed to supervise health-care personnel, and that Dr. Cerecedes failed to properly respond to his inmate appeals.

Screening and Claims

Because McGinnis was a prisoner suing government personnel, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court explained that an Eighth Amendment medical-care claim requires a serious medical need and deliberate indifference, meaning that a defendant denied, delayed, or intentionally interfered with needed treatment, or provided care in a way showing that mental state. Dental care is included within medical care for this purpose.

The court held that, when read generously, the complaint stated a claim against Dr. Jones and nurse Salonga. It alleged that Jones failed to adequately treat McGinnis’s tooth pain and infections and that Salonga refused to treat him on June 24. The court stated that, had McGinnis named only those two defendants, it would have ordered service of process.

The court found that the allegations against Davis and Gipson were inadequate because they were based only on failure to supervise. Section 1983 does not impose liability merely because a supervisor is responsible for another employee; a supervisor may be liable based on personal involvement or a sufficient causal connection to the constitutional violation. The court also found the allegations against Drs. Cerecedes, Clark, and Mettu too general because McGinnis did not identify the dates of their examinations or explain what each dentist allegedly did wrong. The claim against Dr. Cerecedes based on handling an inmate appeal was dismissed without leave to amend because California inmates have no federal constitutional right to a prison grievance or administrative-appeal system.

The court found no claim against nurse Gladden based on the allegations that she performed McGinnis’s initial screening, explained how to request care, and that he then received medication and saw a nurse and dentist within several days. The court concluded that the alleged delay did not appear to show deliberate indifference.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend so McGinnis could try to state claims against Davis, Gipson, Dr. Cerecedes, Dr. Clark, Dr. Mettu, and Gladden. It instructed him to identify each defendant individually and explain what that person did or failed to do. The amended complaint was due by September 4, 2020. If he did not file one, the action would proceed against Dr. Jones and nurse Salonga, with the original complaint serving as the operative pleading.

Judge Susan Illston denied McGinnis’s motion for appointment of counsel. The court found no exceptional circumstances because the records showed that McGinnis received pain medication, antibiotics, examinations, referrals to an outside oral surgeon, and treatment at outside hospitals, suggesting at most a modest likelihood of success, and because he had adequately explained his claims without a lawyer.